Back in the 70's, then New York State governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was in many ways a socialist, introduced very tough drug laws in NY, mostly because even he realized the drug problem was already getting out of control. Those laws have kept the cops, the courts, and defense lawyers very busy over the years, but they also kept our people and our streets safer.
Now, in a desperate attempt to get some political support from someone, anyone, David Paterson, our unelected, incompetent, blind, black Dumbocrat governor, has decided to do away with those laws. Like most other ultra-liberals, the gov feels junkies are simply poor people in need of rehabilitation, coddling, understanding, and all the other touchy-feely things liberals love to bestow on societies predators. (even the Social Security Administration has made drug use a "disability", thus giving junkies your tax money every month!) To NY's junkies and dealers, the gov's action will mark an historic event, one that they will celebrate. Maybe they'll name their next shipment of Heroin after him.
Believe me, of all the creatures who occupy Gods good earth, junkies are the least deserving of "touchy-feely" treatment. They have but one goal, to get high, and there's "nothing" they won't say or do to accomplish that. Lie. Rob. Kill. Nothing! Those who have someone, or know of someone who has a serious drug problem know exactly what i'm talking about.
Now, thanks to the blind guy, and the other ultra-liberal Demoncrats who totally control NY's politics, drug use in NY will become almost legal, because junkies will see this as a legalization of their habits. The Police will be (quietly and "unofficially") told to "lay-off". In a year from now, the Leftist NYC media will make the gov's move seem as though this was the greatest thing since slice bread. In other words, they will lie. As usual, the real losers are the law-abiding people of NY, especially in NYC where the majority of drug crimes occur. In the bizarro world, where liberals live, this will be seen as a compassionate thing. In the real world, where the rest of us live, this will be seen for what it is, an act of insanity and incredible stupidity, by a political hack who's 15 minutes are just about up...
http://ny1.com/1-all-boroughs-news-content/top_stories/?ArID=96365
8 comments:
I agree this is stupid, but I'm probably coming from a much different angle.
I think that drugs should be decriminalized. But they should be made available to the ADULT public ONLY. It needs to be taxed like liquor and the tax money goes for education and rehab, just like alcohol taxes SHOULD.
There is an historical account from every society through known time, that mankind seeks to alter his outlook with drugs and alcohol. There is hardly a society that doesn't dabble for religion or recreation. Why expect modern man to stop being part of what makes him human.
I always find it odd, that liberals think that we are on one hand brothers of and just a step away from apes, and on the other hand tell us just how exalted, mighty and superior we are in the universe. My findings never vary that widely.
Taxation, Legalization, Education
It worked for alcohol and gambling. Hell, it took organized crime OUT of those areas of control. And yes, I realize that we still have illegal gambling and moonshine. But when was the last time you heard about Crips, Bloods, MS13, Hells Angels, Satan's Soldiers, or the Mafia(s) fighting turf wars over those things? They don't, not enough money to go to jail over left in gambling or moonshining hardly.
But drugs, THAT is THE crime problem now. Solve it, make it legal.
Steve bud, i happen to agree with most of what you're saying and your reasoning. And as i've said before, i think pot should finally be made legal everywhere, not just in parts of Mexifornia. But, as for the "hard-core" drugs, (meth, crack, heroin, cocaine, etc.) i don't believe legalization would be a good idea, mainly because of the effects those drugs have on users and the things they do to get them. (i don't ever recall hearing of someone going out and butchering a family after smoking a joint) With legalization, even though junkies would be able to buy drugs legally, they will still be driven by their addiction to commit the same crimes to get the money to buy their legal drugs. Unless of course, it's all covered by Odumbo and his "give everything to everybody" health plan, which wouldn't surprise me.
What is needed (IMO) for the hard-core drug users is not touchy-feely compassion, (it never worked and never will) it's hard time on a chain gang. Make them productive. As for dealers, 2nd conviction, "mandatory" life sentence! Make the punishment bigger than the profits.
I'm very well aware that no law can make people stop doing what they really want to do, but as a nation, we can surly make it very costly for them, and not just in dollars. For example, we can make the so-called war on drugs real, rather than the joke it is now. It was a "war" that was never meant to be won, only fought, because of all the money involved. We would also have to get serious about security at our borders and ports.
But, regardless of what your opinion is, i do believe making pot legal would be a good start. Let's see what we can learn, assuming we still can...
I think the difference in crime / no crime would be in cost of the drugs. I also think there should be some that do not get legalized, crack most assuredly goes to the top of the list. I'm not sure what else, but IF there are other legal highs out there, perhaps people would go there.
Not everyone who drinks, HAS to drink Everclear.
Cost would become more in line with beer, wine or liquor, if drugs or some drugs were legal. Part of the cost of illegal drugs is the inclusion of high costs because the transporters and sellers demand great amounts of money to offset the legal possibilities. No one would be selling dope, if working at McD's paid better. The sellers are about money, the users are more often than not, looking for a buzz.
As much as I despise the gub'ment, I pay taxes on alcohol, tiresand gasoline, I'd pay taxes for some other stuff too.
Schteveo said...
"I think the difference in crime / no crime would be in cost of the drugs. I also think there should be some that do not get legalized, crack most assuredly goes to the top of the list. I'm not sure what else, but IF there are other legal highs out there, perhaps people would go there."
It really doesn't work that way. So long as the heavy drugs remain illegal, nothing will change, except perhaps, to actually get worse since there'll be less stuff on the street, which will cause the prices to go way up, causing more crime. A heroin junkie is not gonna do crack, since it's two very different highs, and vise-versa. Believe it or not, the street cretins all have their "drug of choice", and while it's basically true that they'll do anything to get high, they'll always find a way back to their favorites.
In the 70's the streets were safer? What drugs were you on?
I have no problem with legalizing opiates. That would take in the horse addicts. But if they could get methadone at the Bodega, how many would self medicate OFF of heroin?
And like I said, the taxes help pay for rehab. Right now WE pay for the DEA, the FBI AND all the rehab. It's foolish.
BOW said...
"In the 70's the streets were safer? What drugs were you on?"
Yes they were, insofar as violent drug crimes were concerned.
Steve, generally speaking, methadone has been an expensive failure.
I agree that violent crime is being committed over drugs, but it seems to me that the gang bangers are doing more of that than the addicts.
Just the difference in the number of junkies vs bangers would push those numbers up. And the availability of guns works in favor of the gangs too. Junkies / crack heads will sell their momma for a high, guns and knives are easier to sell and hide the sale.
Post a Comment